Abstract
Geometry optimization is one of the most often applied techniques in computational drug discovery. Although geometry optimization routines are generally deterministic, the minimization trajectories can be extremely sensitive to initial conditions, especially in case of larger systems such as proteins. Simple manipulations such as coordinate transformations (translations and rotations), file saving and retrieving, and hydrogen addition can introduce small variations (∼0.001 Å) in the starting coordinates which can drastically affect the minimization trajectory. With large systems, optimized geometry differences of up to 1 Å RMSD and final energy differences of several kcal/mol can be observed when using many commercially available software packages. Differences in computer platforms can also lead to differences in minimization trajectories. Here we demonstrate how routine structure manipulations can introduce small variations in atomic coordinates, which upon geometry optimization, can give rise to unexpectedly large differences in optimized geometries and final energies. We also show how the same minimizations run on different computer platforms can also lead to different results. The implications of these findings on routine computational chemistry procedures are discussed.




Similar content being viewed by others
References
Scheid F (1968) Theory and problems of numerical analysis. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York
Hayes B (2003) A lucid interval. Am Scientist 91:484–488
Demmel J (1992) Trading off parallelism and numerical stability. Computer Science Division Tech Report UCB//CSD-92-702, University of California, Berkeley
Lorenz E (1996) The essence of Chaos. University of Washington Press, Seattle. ISBN: 0295975148
Gleick J (1987) Chaos: making a new Science. Penguin Books, New York. ISBN: 0140092501
Sornette D (2002) Nature debates: earthquakes 1999. Internet References. Retrieved from http://www.nature.com/nature/debates/earthquake/, accessed on 9/19/2002
Groison D (2002) Est-il vrai que les ordinateurs font des erreurs de calcul? Science Vie 1022:130
Skeel R. (1992) Roundoff error and the patriot missile. SIAM News 25:11
McDonald SW, Gregbogi C, Ott E, Yorke JA (1985) Fractal basin boundries. Physica D 17:125–153
Barth E, Schlick T (1998) Extrapolation versus impulse in multiple-time stepping schemes. II. Linear analysis and applications to Newtonian and Langevin dynamics. J Chem Phys 109:1633–1642
Biesiadecki JJ, Skeel RD (1993) Dangers of multiple time step methods. J Comput Phys 109:318–328
Bishop TC, Skeel RD, Schulten K (1997) Difficulties with multiple time stepping and fast multipole algorithm in molecular dynamics. J Comput Chem 18:1785–1791
Sandu1 A, Schlick T (1999) Masking resonance artifacts in force-splitting methods for biomolecular simulations by extrapolative Langevin dynamics. J Comput Phys 151:74–113
Hatano Y, Yamamoto S, Tatewaki H (2005) Characterization of molecular orbitals by counting nodal regions. J Comput Chem 26:325–333
Young DC (2001) Computational chemistry: a practical guide for applying techniques to real-world problems. Wiley, New York
Stillinger FH (1999) Exponetial multiplicity of inherent structures. Phys Rev E 59:48–51
Doye JPK, Wales DJ (2002) Saddle points and dynamics of Lennard-Jones clusters, solids and supercooled liquids. J Chem Phys 116:3777–3788
Blackford LS, Cleary A, Petitet A, Whaley RC, Demmel J, Dhillon I, Ren H, Stanley K, Dongarra J (1997) Practical experience in the numerical dangers of heterogeneous computing. ACM Trans Math Software 23:133–147
MOE (2004) Molecular Operating Environment, version 2004.03; Chemical Computing Group Inc., Montreal
Cornell WD, Cieplak P, Bayly CI, Gould IR, Merz KM, Ferguson DM, Spellmeyer DC, Fox T, Caldwell JW, Kollman PA (1995) A second generation force field for the simulation of proteins, nucleic acids, and organic molecules. J Am Chem Soc 117:5179–5197
HyperChem, version 6.0, HyperCube Inc., Gainesville, FL, 32601, USA
ChemX, version 2000.1, Oxford Molecular Ltd., currently Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA
Cerius2, version 4.9, 2004, Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, 92121, USA
Halgren TA (1996) Basis, form, scope, parametrization, and performance of MMFF94. J Comput Chem 17:490–519
Mayo SL, Olafson BD, Goddard WA (1990) DREIDING: a generic force field for molecular simulations. J Phys Chem 94:8897–8909
Discovery Studio, version 1.7, 2007, Accelrys Inc., San Diego, CA, USA
MacroModel 9.1, Schrodinger Inc., Portland, OR, 97204, USA
Brooks BR, Bruccoleri RE, Olafson BD, States DJ, Swaminathan S, Karplus M (1983) A program for macromolecular energy, minimization, and dynamics calculations. J Comput Chem 4:187–217
Jorgensen WL, Maxwell DS, Tirado-Rives J (1996) Development and testing of the OPLS all-atom force field on conformational energetics and properties of organic liquids. J Am Chem Soc 118:11225–11236
Kuntz ID, Chen K, Sharp KA, Kollman PA (1999) The maximal affinity of ligands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 96:9997–10002
Braxenthaler M, Unger R, Auerbach D, Given JA, Moult J (1997) Chaos in protein dynamics. PROTEINS: Struct Funct Genet 29:417–425
Zhou H, Wang L (1996) Chaos in biomolecular dynamics. J Phys Chem 100:8101–8105
Duan Y, Kollman PA (2001) Computational protein folding: from lattice to all-atom. IBM Syst J 40:297–309
Acknowledgements
The contribution of Eugen Deretey in the early stages of this work is acknowledged. Paul Labute, Martin Santavy and Jocelyn Demers of Chemical Computing Group are gratefully acknowledged for insightful discussions about the subject. James Bugden is also thanked for useful comments on numerical stability and compiler differences.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Williams, C.I., Feher, M. The effect of numerical error on the reproducibility of molecular geometry optimizations. J Comput Aided Mol Des 22, 39–51 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9154-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10822-007-9154-7